EXPOSING LEAHY’S LEGACY OF LIES: Week of Dec. 6
EXPOSING LEAHY’S LEGACY OF LIES — Part 2
SPEAKING TRUTH TO POWER
Quotations from the Air Force’s official records of the F-35 Burlington Basing Selection Process
Introductory Statement:
“We are here to read to you a quotation from the Air Force official administrative record of the F-35 Burlington basing selection process and to get your response to it.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Concluding Statement:
“We request that Senator Leahy initiate an independent investigation into the political corruption of the F-35 Burlington basing selection process.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Day 33: Friday, December 6, 2019
On September 11, 2013, Mr Dryden, an official at Headquarters Air Force Installation office wrote to Mr Germanos, the F-35 Burlington Basing EIS Project Manager exclaiming that the F-35 noise cannot be blocked or lessened, and that Burlington was the worst of all of the bases being considered for the F-35 basing.
“Why would you think that the noise at Burlington can be addressed with mitigation? Outside purchase and relocation of those affected, I don’t know what could be done. The results of the EIS indicates Burlington is the wrong answer of all the alternatives.” (Admin Record #62486)
Day 34: Monday, December 9, 2019
For the next five days, the quotations relate to the Vermont Air National Guard’s attempted manipulation of the basing process. Specifically, they made statements, both in public and behind the scenes, claiming that they could fly the F-35 in a way that would produce less noise than the Air Force assessments. The Air Force experts refuted the Vermont Guard’s statements by saying that what the Vermont Guard was claiming was not possible.
On April 1, 2011, Ms Engleman, an official from the Headquarters Air Force Noise/Encroachment Management office wrote to Col Nelson, the Director of Planning and Programs for the Secretary of the Air Force. She informed him that the way the Vermont Air National Guard said they want to fly the F-35 was not the standard way that the Air Force was flying the F-35. She added that even if the Vermont Guard were able to fly this way, it would not decrease the noise. Rather, the F-35 noise would still be heard—but just in another location on the ground. The Vermont Guard is proposing unusual ways of flying in order to try to make the F-35 appear to be less loud.
“Given the concerns of the ANG [Air National Guard] General, if a question comes up about the Vermont Guard wanting to fly with less than full mil power, this is not in the profiles because that is not the standard way we fly….That kind of change will not decrease the total size of the noise contour, but it may shift noise somewhere else. I don’t know if the plane will take longer to get out of the area and the two factors offset themselves – less noise but more time, so the SEL (Sound Exposure Level) stays more or less the same….Any other changes mean we are just shifting the noise one place to another. The ultimate question is where are the people – close in to the airfield or further out.” (Admin Record #47285)
Day 35: Tuesday, December 10, 2019
This is the second quotation relating to the Vermont Air National Guard’s attempted manipulation of the basing process. Specifically, they made statements, both in public and behind the scenes, claiming that they could fly the F-35 in a way that would produce less noise than the Air Force assessments. The Air
Force experts refuted the Vermont Guard’s statements by saying that what the Vermont Guard was claiming was not possible.
On November 16, 2012, Ms Engelman, an official from the Headquarters Air Force Noise/Encroachment Management office, wrote to Mr Penland, the Headquarters Air Force Chief of Operational Basing. She told him about some of the problems they were having with Vermont Air National Guard officials making public claims that were not correct. Specifically, the Vermont Guard were claiming to be able to fly the F-35 in a way that would produce less noise. Engelman is expressing doubt that the plane could be flown that way; and that even if it could, she doubted it would lower the noise level. She says that there was the possibility that, if flown the way the Vermont Guard proposed, the F-35 would produce noise for a longer period of time, which might increase the overall noise levels.
“What we do have is a potential problem with the ANG [Air National Guard] going on air and saying what they are saying….they have to be careful about unfulfilled expectations should they not be able to do what they say. Also who knows what it will really do to the noise—could be that it makes it worse somewhere else, or it doesn’t really change it at all because they are in the area of the base longer because of the lower power.” (Admin Record #56076)
Day 36: Wednesday, December 11, 2019
This is the third quotation relating to the Vermont Air National Guard’s attempted manipulation of the basing process. Specifically, they made statements, both in public and behind the scenes, claiming that they could fly the F-35 in a way that would produce less noise than the Air Force assessments. The Air Force experts refuted the Vermont Guard’s statements by saying that what the Vermont Guard was claiming was not possible.
On November 16, 2012, Mr Penland, the Headquarters Air Force chief of Operational Basing, responded to Ms Engelman, an official from the Headquarters Air Force Noise/Encroachment Management office. He explained the ramifications of flying a fighter jet the way the Vermont Air National Guard was proposing. He says that fighter aircraft are not designed to fly the way that the Vermont Air Guard said they wanted to fly them.
“Reducing your power in a climb typically means you takeoff in A/B [after burner] or military [military power] and once safely airborne and established in a climb then you can reduce your power settings for the climb out. Assuming your aircraft can do that, which I assume this one can. What we heard they wanted to do was takeoff in a reduced power setting, something below A/B or military from brake release. That is not normal for a fighter. Some larger aircraft with multiple engines do that, but not normal for fighters.” (Admin Record #56055)
Day 37: Thursday, December 12, 2019
This is the fourth quotation relating to the Vermont Air National Guard’s attempted manipulation of the basing process. Specifically, they made statements, both in public and behind the scenes, claiming that they could fly the F-35 in a way that would produce less noise than the Air Force assessments. The Air Force experts refuted the Vermont Guard’s statements by saying that what the Vermont Guard was claiming was not possible.
On July 7, 2010, Mr Peter, a principal working for CARNO TEC, a defense contractor tasked to produce the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) wrote to Ms Parker, the Air Combat Command F-35 EIS project manager. He explained that they were directed to use the parameters that Lieutenant Colonel Caputo (LTC), the Vermont Air National Guard F-35 program integration office, wanted. Specifically, they
were directed to report that at the Air National Guard bases, the F-35 would take off in afterburner only 1% of the time. But, at the active duty Air Force bases, the F-35 would take off in afterburner 60% of the time. He points out that this is “very inconsistent” and asks what they should do. He also mentions that Caputo said that some (17%) of the F-35 operations would be conducted at other locations. Peter is unaware of this happening at other Air Force bases. He again mentions the “marked proportional difference” between the Air Guard bases and the active duty Air Force bases, and wonders if this makes sense and is ok.
“Per previous direction, we have been using the Burlington (LTC Caputo) parameters for proposed operations at the ANG [Air National Guard] bases… The data we have been provided propose that the F-35As at Burlington would fly using 1% afterburner takeoffs, but all the other bases would use afterburner 60% of the time. This seems very inconsistent. Please provide direction… For the ANG bases, LTC Caputo indicated that 17% of the total proposed F-35A airfield operations would be conducted elsewhere. However, no such deployment/detachment scenario has been identified for the active-duty bases. As such, there is a marked proportional difference between the two sets of bases. Is this ok? (Admin Record #64024)
Day 38: Friday, December 13, 2019
This is the fifth quotation relating to the Vermont Air National Guard’s attempted manipulation of the basing process. Specifically, they made statements, both in public and behind the scenes, claiming that they could fly the F-35 in a way that would produce less noise than the Air Force assessments. The Air Force experts refuted the Vermont Guard’s statements by saying that what the Vermont Guard was claiming was not possible.
On October 22, 2012, Ms Engelman, an official from the Headquarters Air Force Noise/Encroachment Management office, wrote to Penland, the Headquarters Air Force chief of Operational Basing criticizing the Vermont Air National Guard claims about how they propose to fly the F-35. She explains that the Vermont Air Guard is unaware of the consequences of flying the F-35 the way they propose because they do not have real world F-35 flying experience. Moreover, she says if the Vermont Guard flies the way they propose, including not taking off in afterburner, they will not be adequately trained for combat. She says it is risky to forego combat training in order to get the F-35 based in Vermont. She ends by stating there is no reason to risk inadequate training when there are other missions (“reasonable alternatives”) for the Vermont Air National Guard other than the F-35.
“Is the Guard willing to conduct all their training with less than full tanks, does anyone understand consumption of this aircraft. (e.g. F22 gets 20 minutes without external stores when not in super cruise). While there is the argument for the simulator, have the guard folks ever flown their entire training sortie in the simulator (which, oh wait, they don’t know what it is til later on) so they understand what the fuel consumption is? How will taking off with less than full fuel, effect training efficiencies and need for refueling during the training? Seems like to me there are other questions than the noise. If we go down this route then the whole encroachment argument that we have to train like we fight goes out the window. When will Guard pilots get experience using full AB [afterburner] if they don’t do it at their home base. Perhaps this a discussion that has to take place on all training and specifically on this issue at the ANG/A3 types [Air National Guard/ operations] – are we willing to not train like we fight just to fit aircraft in place when there are “reasonable alternatives“ for that location. (Admin Record #55754)